What happened to "I am no longer a part of the token so I couldn't possibly comment on their actions so contact them directly" when asked anything about the project?
I like how you admitted it isn't actually a DAO though. That'll be interesting when talking about all your Votes.
Whilst it is most unfortunate that Sam did not like my response and demanded and threatened me with legal action if I did not remove the post and then became further upset after I responded in clarifying why I said what I said, we are here.
As TG and Discord is aware, I am planning to publish a 2025 report this month. What everyone is not aware is that I planned to disclose to the DAO that Sam shared back in September his personal motivations that lead to him authoring the March proposal in such a way that failed to disclose to the DAO his personal motivations. His personal motivations are material, very material and the DAO deserves to know these and then the DAO deserves to have another vote to determine whether or not they want to receive these class b non-voting shares. The DAO's legal reps are in support of this.
I asked Committee members to recuse themselves from Wallet Enterprise and Sam matters because they have various conflicts of interest. Instead, they resigned.
I also planned to make the DAO aware that Sam is refusing to provide the commits (code entries) for Atlas Wallet as we wanted to pull this code into the Foundation as an asset. We paid for the code to the turn of more than $1.5M, however, Dear DAO, Sam says that the code belongs to him and him only and that the code has never belonged to us. I remain in shock on this one. Our legal reps also support the fact the the Atlas Wallet code belongs to us.
Sam also has made us aware that the team wallets that he used to track as ours are now his personally and he says that he has the right to vote with these wallets and do whatever he pleases with them. Again, our legal reps question this act. Sam says that he has an NDA and paid for these. No blockchain evidence exists and even if it does, how is it ok to cut a deal for team wallets and when you leave the project you don't leave the wallets behind just as our founders did the right thing.
After reviewing my report, the plan is (and legal supports this) to ask the DAO to then revote on each of the 3 matters in the March proposal seperately. Not lumped into one vote and also to ask the DAO to vote on whether or not we want Wallet Enterprises to have our codebase.
Whatever the DAO decides, I will fully support. If the DAO rescinds any of the vote results and votes differently then we would look to Wallet Enterprises to do the right thing and if Wallet Enterprises refuses to do the right thing well then we can vote as to whether or not we want to accept that Sam will not honor our vote results or if we want our BVI legal reps to pursue Wallet Enterprises in the BVI.
Again, I had hoped to be able to disclose all of this information that has been ongoing since mid September in a more professional and documented way with dates, etc., however unfortunately Sam has disclosed the Committee situation though none of the past members were cohersed, they were asked to recuse themselves instead.
I am really sorry that this has come out in this matter. It is embarrassing, however, I cannot and will not let @SamCKx continue with his bully tactics.
I love you all and I will always be Cedar strong even if it appears that perhaps some folks that we've held near and dear do not.
Respectfully,
Shawnte
PS - I am sure there are some typos and parts of this post that do not flow properly. The report will be much easier to get through.
@RealShawnte@SamCKx@CedarDAO@DormantReaper92 And why? Because he himself said it was already earmarked for x,y & z and "to give it back isn't how business works in the real world" along with his usual "Elon doesn't have to do it so why should he"
So it's spent by his own words, just don't going looking for the deleted post
@RealShawnte@SamCKx@CedarDAO@DormantReaper92 Weirder still is the fact he is using a particularly favourite tactic of playing with the facts in that he doesn't have to have spent the full $1.2m (along with the over $300k in $20k monthlies) for it to be considered spent by the CDR token. He said the $1.2m will never go back
@SamCKx@DigitalBradshaw@piersmorgan@CedarDAO So did they all sell up after migrating because there was just under 140k holders of EGC and there's not even 5.5k holders of CDR? Even at the low side of "majority" that's gonna be about 70k you are saying have migrated?